"Friction Heater" by Gabriel

[PhysicsProf]

Seems this "corner of the forum" is getting quiet, except for mbrownn and Hiwater...

This based on a post I made at Lasersaber's "new" forum; which I recommend for your consideration:
http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=81.0#new

A clever fellow named Gabriel claims:  

Friction heater running in my house

There is a light oil between the disks, that gets hot.

He writes at EF on 31 Oct 2012:  http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12565-friction-heater-running-my-house.html

Quote

   This friction heater I have built costs me around 5 cents a hour to run @ 14 cents a kilowatt. The inside temp of my house is at 70F day and night, the out side is around 30F to 10F. That would be a delta T between 40F and 60F. My house is around 1250 sq. ft.
   Here is my youtube Chanel where I post my videos on it.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQjPSsIWDvg&feature=plcp

Also a thread at OU with additional info:

http://www.overunity.com/13068/friction-heater-running-in-my-house/new/#new

Not necessarily claimed to be tapping a previously unused energy source; but interesting.  I'd like to see measurements of input and output energy.

First the JR crossover by LS, now this!  lots of cool stuff going on.

Happy experimenting.
--Steve

[Slider2732]

Yes, watching this intently...
The disc machining seems to be what limits replicators. Though, I read that someone has about 30 coffee can bases that they've kept and were wondering if those could be used. If so, it may open things up.

[PhysicsProf]

Yes, watching this intently...
The disc machining seems to be what limits replicators. Though, I read that someone has about 30 coffee can bases that they've kept and were wondering if those could be used. If so, it may open things up.

Thanks for watching this, slider.   I wonder if one could start with a smaller size of discs, then cut holes in the centers...  Build with say 10 disks.  A smaller model for testing...
Gabriel said he has a version that fits inside a Coke can size...  

[PhysicsProf]

  Here is Gabriel's latest vid --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbuZRn9duYE

Very impressive, IMHO!   I like the direct drive and the quiet running!

A controlled calorimetric evaluation would be great. I've offered to Gabriel to help e.g. by a calorimetric measurement.

My daughter is coming home tomorrow from a wonderful service/teaching mission and the family is gathered to greet her (in Maryland).
  Mid- next week, I return to the home lab (finally, after long travels).  I truly look forward to tests again!  Hope to help out with this and the Mike Nunnerley device soon after return.

--Steven J

[ion]

He should put the whole assembly in a large sturdy cardboard box or other large container(to simulate a very small room).

Measure ambient and temp at the top of the box. Subtract the two. This is the rise over ambient.

Compare this to a small heater drawing approximately the same power. (run off a Variac to adjust power input or parallel large resistors  or lamps as a heater to obtain equivalent power drain to the DUT)

Use a small fan to lightly stir the air.

Consider the power factor in the motor drive power, not just VxA.

This is the "fixed loss to ambient" method.

If we arrive at the same end temperature, we can consider the losses to ambient to be the approximately the same and therefore can determine the first cut efficacy of such a device. No hocus-pocus.

This is a comparative method of approximation and works well.

[Gabriel]

He should put the whole assembly in a large sturdy cardboard box or other large container(to simulate a very small room).

Measure ambient and temp at the top of the box. Subtract the two. This is the rise over ambient.

Compare this to a small heater drawing approximately the same power. (run off a Variac to adjust power input or parallel large resistors  or lamps as a heater to obtain equivalent power drain to the DUT)

Use a small fan to lightly stir the air.

Consider the power factor in the motor drive power, not just VxA.

This is the "fixed loss to ambient" method.

If we arrive at the same end temperature, we can consider the losses to ambient to be the approximately the same and therefore can determine the first cut efficacy of such a device. No hocus-pocus.

This is a comparative method of approximation and works well.

Hello,

I am going to have to make a box that would be the right size for the heater in my house. I guess I will use 8, 100 watt light bulbs or I have a 1500 watt electric heater i could use.
I am going to have to talk my wife into letting me take the heater out in the shop for a few days   She will just have to turn on the Monitor Kerosene heater.... That will cost me $40 just for a week of running.

Well anyways I will make this box and report back with the results as soon as I can. It may take a few days or so.

Thank you
Gabriel

[Chet K]

Gabriel
Welcome to the forum,don't let the wife and kids catch cold or you'll be in the dog house!!
HHMmmm.  "Dog house calorimetry"
?

Your a good man thanks for being here,I suspect we'll have a good time replicating!
Thx
Chet

[PhysicsProf]

Hello,

I am going to have to make a box that would be the right size for the heater in my house. I guess I will use 8, 100 watt light bulbs or I have a 1500 watt electric heater i could use.
I am going to have to talk my wife into letting me take the heater out in the shop for a few days  She will just have to turn on the Monitor Kerosene heater.... That will cost me $40 just for a week of running.

Well anyways I will make this box and report back with the results as soon as I can. It may take a few days or so.

Thank you
Gabriel

Welcome to our forum, Gabriel!  A warm welcome.

Note that visitors to the bigger forum cannot SEE your posts in the Freedom Energy portion here -- but they CAN see posts in the general area and also in the "SHOUT BOX".

I look forward to working with you! I would very much like to do a replication of your device.  Will need some pointers and (if possible) some help with parts...
Thanks again for joining us,

--Steven J

[poynt99]

Yes, looking forward to seeing your results Gabriel.

.99

[ion]

When using the fixed loss to ambient method, the box should be large enough that it does not duly overheat, compromise the motor function or be a fire hazard.

If you live in a cool climate, best then to operate it outdoors also as a safety precaution.

Do you have any idea at this time of the estimated heat output of this device including motor dissipation?

[Gabriel]

When using the fixed loss to ambient method, the box should be large enough that it does not duly overheat, compromise the motor function or be a fire hazard.

If you live in a cool climate, best then to operate it outdoors also as a safety precaution.

Do you have any idea at this time of the estimated heat output of this device including motor dissipation?

Hello ION,

Thanks for the tip, would hate to have a unwanted bonfire on my hands Unless I had the hotdogs and marshmallow on hand
It does get kinda cold at this time of the year, " in the teens " so I think this would be best to at night with out the influence of the sun, don't need any passes solar heat messing with the out come.
As far as the high temp I can control that, I will have it set to 250F. I was running this at 300F but was getting oil vapors at that temp.
So I will keep the heater 200F to 250F for this small space and testing. I have found some "sweet" spots for the run of this heater but I will have to make some changes to get it back there.

Thank you
Gabriel

[PhysicsProf]

More with regard to ION's test with a cardboard box -- but which I'd rather not post on the "public" thread --

As I wrote a while back, I'm going to fix up a small room in our new basement, to serve as a test chamber for Gabriel's device.  We close on the house next week.  A control would be run an electric-resistance heater at the SAME POWER input...

I will also have the entire basement available for tests, and I like ION's suggestion for a cardboard box running at constant input power, and determining at what temp the box stabilizes (heat flow out equals input energy-flow).  This can be compared with the stabilization temp. for the resistance-heater at the same input power.

[Gabriel]

+1 yea I like it as well.

I will have to wait a few days for some more coins in the pocket for the other temp probes needed for this test. I am running on a thin line with my tool funds at this time until I get my new lathe. Same old story " Time and Money " I guess I will have to get a small fan as well for moving the air.

[Chet K]

Gabriel
If you could do me a kind favor?
do you have total input data on the device from Cold to full warm up? KWH data ? [start temp ,stop temp]
total time to final temp would be good to know also.
Also your oil type?
and volume of oil in the device at the time of test.

when I get home Sunday I'm gonna play a bit ,maybe make some French fries
I'm at work till then so time is tight.

thx
Chet
Ps
Funny I was running late when I answered your post this AM on the main forum [,bad nights sleep to blame].
I did not realize at the time you were not in the freedom section.
Oh well........
Its all good !!

[ion]

Gentlemen:

If you choose to test only the surface heat producing oil/disc mechanism against a "control" metal container, and exclude the motor generated heat, you might want to be very careful if you decide to use oil in your "control".

I recommend against such a practice (using oil) as it is totally unnecessary and dangerous. You need only put your resistive heater in a metal container of the same surface area as the DUT. The heat generated has no where to go except to the walls of the "control". Use wire with insulation that can withstand the high temperature that will be generated in the "control".

Be sure that the "control" is not sealed tightly, you want some of the expanded air to escape through small holes to prevent pressure buildup and an explosion.

Remember this is not a test of the complete device and motor heat must be added for final comparison.

[Chet K]

ION
I suppose there will be a few more questions on your test protocol here .

Well for starters......
How would that work ?
We will have a value [total input] for the DUT as well as start stop temp data.[total rise]

How to compare the data of a resistor in an Air manifold with equal surface area?
I could understand the Input being doable ...after that I'm lost?[air Verses Oil??]
thx
Chet

[Chet K]

Seems we have a lot of data available already in this "electric heating of oil efficiently" department?

Pitco Frialator Model E14B Electric Fryer Performance Test

It occurred to me last night that I had done some repair work on the fryer at this facility one night [Yes I do everything here ].
The Chef and I discussed time to heat quite a bit ,its a small "fryer" however I was amazed at the slow "time to Heat" time with all that input energy?

after pondering this I am even more encouraged By Gabriel's device.

Thx
Chet

[ion]

How to compare the data of a resistor in an Air manifold with equal surface area?
I could understand the Input being doable ...after that I'm lost?[air Verses Oil??]
thx
Chet

"x" number of square inches of surface area of the DUT will radiate heat to the ambient at a certain rate resulting in a certain measurable surface temperature.

A resistor or lamp placed into the empty container will also heat the identical number of square inches of surface area to a measurable temperature, so we adjust and measure the input power  to arrive at the same temperature as the DUT.

Then we note power required in the "control" to produce the same surface temperature "rise over ambient".

Both tests will need to be adjusted for ambient.

Then we know how much power is required to produce the identical surface temperature "rise over ambient" in the "control"

Again this does not take into account  wasted heat due to inefficiency of the motor or turbulence produced by the motor fan and coupler, but in the final analysis this needs to be considered.

This is why a test chamber as I originally proposed eliminates some of the guesswork.

P.S. Using a "fryer" as a control poses difficulties as they are either double walled or insulated to some degree, so you only have one surface efficiently radiating to ambient (top of the oil). This cuts way down the radiative surfaces, so the fryer will come to temperature rapidly. This is not an equal comparison. The identical container should be used in both tests with identical radiative surface area.

[Gabriel]

In the next day I will have the heater set up for the testing. I am going to use the " BOX " test. 
The heater I called on at my local store was sold out ( after they told me they had it ) and the only one left was a 1500 watt one for a horse troth, to big to fit into my heater.
I am just going to tape some boxes, that should work.
I will track the time, temp rise, ambient air temp, box top temp and KWHs. this test will be done at night in my shop.
I was thinking of 2 sets of tests. One with the heater start temp at ambient air temp. and the other with the heater already at running temp.

I know we need to get started on replicate this on your guys end so let me know when we want to start. I have some parts made up ready to go.

[PhysicsProf]

In the next day I will have the heater set up for the testing. I am going to use the " BOX " test. 
The heater I called on at my local store was sold out ( after they told me they had it ) and the only one left was a 1500 watt one for a horse troth, to big to fit into my heater.
I am just going to tape some boxes, that should work.
I will track the time, temp rise, ambient air temp, box top temp and KWHs. this test will be done at night in my shop.
I was thinking of 2 sets of tests. One with the heater start temp at ambient air temp. and the other with the heater already at running temp.

I know we need to get started on replicate this on your guys end so let me know when we want to start. I have some parts made up ready to go.

Very generous of you again, oilpiggy!  As for me, I would very much like to do a replication soon using the direct drive method you have shown and preferably a DC motor, although I have a decent 120V AC motor right now.

"When" ? -- I will be back to a 'home lab' environment on 24th January and it would be great to start on that day or soon after.
Pls let me know costs including shipping costs, I don't at all want to burden you financially.
Thanks again.

[Chet K]

Gabriel
I will be doing several time to heat tests using the measurement equipment provided by Steve today

I would also like to add "mass" to the mix [your steel components] do you have  an approximate
weight on the "wet" components?

also is your manifold ferrous or nonferrous?

This will be an unsanctioned event  ,  as pointed out by those who know better we have significant heat loses in the motor [need model and manufacter info to calculate] could be as high as 25% loss to heat.

I am playing here ATM just to get familiar with the OIL and how it reacts to input heat.....I may be trying oil in some other experiments here in the near future.


Thx
Chet
PS
I must add,The way your new drive system is configured {very nice] ION pointed out a small water Drum would be another alternative for calorimetry now![30 gal]
then the test would just be straight Calorimetry [not fixed loss to ambient]
suspend the Manifold  into the drum and proceed.....
If you get the manufacturers specs on the motor the loss's can be calculated or should already be available on their spreadsheet.
all things considered SWEET calorimetry method.
THank you ION


Of course your Control would need the mass and such that I am adding to my test also![I believe ION pointed that out to me].

[ion]

As an example, my 1/2 HP motor draws 1047 Watts from the mains, corrected for power factor. 1/2 HP at the shaft =372.85 Watts.

Here is the curve for a typical induction motor efficiency vs loading. I could not find the exact curve for my motor.

Draw your own conclusions.

[PhysicsProf]

As an example, my 1/2 HP motor draws 1047 Watts from the mains, corrected for power factor. 1/2 HP at the shaft =372.85 Watts.

Here is the curve for a typical induction motor efficiency vs loading. I could not find the exact curve for my motor.

Draw your own conclusions.

ION, I would like to understand this, but I don't think I do. 

Lets say the loading is approx 100%, so the eff from your curve is about 87%.  I think I understand that, and a 13% loss from grid input power -- to HEAT in the motor -- seems reasonable.

Then what is this about "1047 Watts from the mains, corrected for power factor. 1/2 HP at the shaft =372.85 Watts." 

1.  This appears to have an eff of approx 373W/1047W = 36%, which seems UNreasonable.  No where does your eff curve show such a low eff.  Pls explain.

In this case --
2.  Does a regular Utility-provided power meter show the ACTUAL power -- or does it need a correction for power factor?

3..  Does a regular Kill-a-watt power meter show the ACTUAL power -- or does it need a correction for power factor?
Pls explain -- and thank you!

PS -traveling again today, on my way home.  so responses may be delayed.

[ion]

ION, I would like to understand this, but I don't think I do.  

Lets say the loading is approx 100%, so the eff from your curve is about 87%.  I think I understand that, and a 13% loss from grid input power -- to HEAT in the motor -- seems reasonable.

Then what is this about "1047 Watts from the mains, corrected for power factor. 1/2 HP at the shaft =372.85 Watts."  

1.  This appears to have an eff of approx 373W/1047W = 36%, which seems UNreasonable.  No where does your eff curve show such a low eff.  Pls explain.

In this case --
2.  Does a regular Utility-provided power meter show the ACTUAL power -- or does it need a correction for power factor?

3..  Does a regular Kill-a-watt power meter show the ACTUAL power -- or does it need a correction for power factor?
Pls explain -- and thank you!

PS -traveling again today, on my way home.  so responses may be delayed.

I am not a motor expert, and I am still researching the subject and reporting my findings. The terms we need to use are Apparent Power (VxA) and Real Power (PF x V x A)

Point 1: This does seem unreasonable. My motor is driving an air compressor. The readings change slightly as the loading changes (as air pressure builds in the tank). The nameplate rating is 1/2 HP, 3450 RPM, 9.8 Amps @ 115 Volts. This is a capacitor start motor as far as I can tell.

My measurements using a Kill A Watt meter reflected 12.4 Amps at 115.7 Volts with a power factor of 0.73 or 1047 Watts real power. I agree this seems way more inefficient than the chart which I lifted from an online image and does not represent my particular motor as I stated in another post. It is probably more indicative of large HP motors which tend to be more efficient rather than fractional HP motors. My research shows that a capacitor start/run motor of fractional HP can be as low as 50 to 65%. I am still investigating this issue. I think WW has much more experience with motors and should chime in on this.

Point 2: As far as I know, residential meters bill for real power not apparent power. I believe commercial and industrial  customers are billed for apparent power  (pure VxA). This I believe provides the incentive for large users with reactive loads to clean up their act by installing compensators to rebalance the phase angle and "correct" the power factor.

I have tested this by unplugging everything in my house so that the meter stopped. Then I put a large AC capacitor across the line. The readings of my meters showed about 8 amps  @ 120 Volts or 960 apparent Watts being drawn, but my house meter did not budge, demonstrating that at least this customer is not billed for apparent power. (pure reactive) By the way, the capacitor stayed cool for the duration of the test, showing no real power dissipated even though 960 Watts of apparent power were circulating. The power factor read very nearly "0".

Point 3: Most Kill A Watt meters show both VxA (apparent power) and power factor corrected Watts (real power)

Still investigating. The point of the chart was meant to show that there is a "sweet spot" loading of the motor, and operating off this point reduces the efficiency of the shaft horsepower transfer, thus more heat is dissipated and therefore radiated by the motor.

[PhysicsProf]

  Very helpful, ION -- thank you!

This especially:

Point 2: As far as I know, residential meters bill for real power not apparent power. I believe commercial and industrial  customers are billed for apparent power  (pure VxA). This I believe provides the incentive for large users with reactive loads to clean up their act by installing compensators to rebalance the phase angle and "correct" the power factor.

I have tested this by unplugging everything in my house so that the meter stopped. Then I put a large AC capacitor across the line. The readings of my meters showed about 8 amps  @ 120 Volts or 960 apparent Watts being drawn, but my house meter did not budge, demonstrating that at least this customer is not billed for apparent power. (pure reactive) By the way, the capacitor stayed cool for the duration of the test, showing no real power dissipated even though 960 Watts of apparent power were circulating. The power factor read very nearly "0".

Excellent test.  I'm setting up a room/lab with a residential power meter which I purchased and which will be used only FOR TESTS, so I don't have to turn off the whole house (each testing time, LOL).

Point 3: Most Kill A Watt meters show both VxA (apparent power) and power factor corrected Watts (real power)

If I push the "KW-H" button, is the thing registering power-factored corrected energy?  (or not?)